Alcohol causes 3 million deaths each year. Eliminating conflicts of interest is vital to bringing this number down

Alcohol causes three million deaths each year, including 13.5% of deaths amongst those aged 20-39 years.

The personal and economic costs of alcohol-related harm are not met by the alcohol industry, which (like tobacco) is increasingly dominated by large multinational companies.

At the global level, there have been many calls for a binding international legal instrument on alcohol control; for example: here, here, and here.

Yet global health scholars warn that a framework convention on alcohol control would be premature at this point. Even if politically feasible, it might “bake in” weak norms that may do little to accelerate the implementation of priority policies for alcohol control. 

You’ll find interesting discussion about this issue here, here, here, and here.

Alcohol industry influence

The WHO’s Global Strategy for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases, adopted in 2000, didn’t even mention alcohol as a risk factor.  This was apparently due to effective lobbying by the industry.

The Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2010, yet WHO Member States have made little progress in adopting effective measures to reduce alcohol-related harm since that time, and global per capita alcohol consumption is expected to increase by 2025 (see here, para 13).

WHO documents have referred to the alcohol industry as “economic operators” and framed them as global stakeholders in reducing alcohol-related harm, encouraging them to implement “self-regulatory initiatives”: see, eg, here (para 45), and here (p 135).

Contrast this with the realisation in the case of tobacco that there is a ‘fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interest’ between the tobacco industry and public health interests (see Guiding Principle 1 here).

The extent of WHO’s engagement with the alcohol industry is summarised in the Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health, published in 2018.

Acknowledging the significant influence of the alcohol industry at global and national levels, including efforts to influence policy and bias research, this report states:

‘Despite this a dialogue has continued with economic operators in alcohol production and trade at the international level seeking ways they can contribute to reducing the harmful use of alcohol in their roles as developers, producers, marketers and sellers of alcoholic beverages’ (p 130).

‘The main areas for the dialogue include self-regulation of marketing within coregulatory frameworks, labelling and consumer information, alcohol content in alcoholic beverages as well as provision of data useful for improving estimates of alcohol consumption in populations. In this context it has to be underlined that regulatory controls on the market must be decided and enforced by governments, with public health interests as the primary goals. Such regulations and their enforcement need to be protected from industry interference.’ (p 135)

The global alcohol industry has effectively exploited the prevailing conceptual approach to addressing NCDs – which emphasises public-private partnerships and a multisectoral, all-of-society approach.

(See, for example, paras 43-44 of the Political Declaration of the 3rd High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on NCDs (2018), or do a word search for “partnership” in the WHO’s Global Action Plan for Prevention and Control of NCDs).

However, engaging with the alcohol industry has failed to reduce alcohol-related harm.

In reality, it has probably been counter-productive. Scholars have pointed out that it has created a welcome environment for influence by the alcohol industry.

WHO itself points out that alcohol industry lobbying is a key reason for countries’ lack of progress in implementing measures to reduce harm (eg here, para 67).

Alcohol and global health: a clear conflict of interest

WHO does not partner with the alcohol industry.

Yet it relies heavily on industry estimates of levels of alcohol consumption (see eg here, pp 398, 407).

And it apparently continues to consult with the industry about how “economic operators” might contribute to:

-the Global Strategy to Reduce Harmful Use of Alcohol (2010);

-the Action Plan (2022-2030) to Effectively Implement the Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol [adopted by the World Health Assembly on 28 May 2022]; and to

-implementing the commitments made at High-level Meetings of the UN General Assembly on NCDs. For examples, see here, (p 3/31; 2019), here (2020), and here (2021).

The Action Plan (2022-2030) to Effectively Implement the Global Strategy was developed precisely because progress in global alcohol control has stalled.

The Action Plan highlights the ‘inherent contradiction between the interests of alcohol producers and public health’ (see para 14).

Yet according to the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), even this document was weakened during the consultation process: see Analysis of Changes to the World Health Organization Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-2030.

It is mistaken to assume that just because opportunities exist to reduce the harm from promotion and sale of alcohol, that engaging or partnering with the industry will benefit public health.

This important lesson also applies to vaping regulation: see here.

If alcohol-related harm were diving sharply, then those who advocate for dialogue and direct engagement might have a point.  But it isn’t.

An OECD report states that Covid-19 may have intensified the problem of harmful alcohol consumption by those who drink to excess. 

Australian evidence suggests that alcohol brands have exploited people’s sense of isolation during Covid-19, and need for support, to push brand awareness: see here, and here.

At the global level, another recent report illustrates that the primary purpose of alcohol industry submissions to the Action Plan (2022-2030) to Effectively Implement the Global Strategy was to:

-challenge concerns about conflicts of interest

-promote collaboration and partnership between government and the alcohol industry; and

-keep the focus of policy efforts directed towards reducing harm from alcohol rather than reducing global consumption overall. See Alcohol Industry Submissions to the WHO 2020 Consultation on the Development of an Alcohol Action Plan: A Content and Thematic Analysis.

So long as they’re part of the conversation, whether at global or national level, the alcohol industry will use their access to policy-makers to advance their economic interests.

Those economic interests, unsurprisingly, involve growing markets for alcohol consumption, strengthening brands, and encouraging consumption.

Alcohol companies continue to play by their own rules, putting our children’s health at risk

A mother and her young son playing together in a park

Reposted from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE). FARE is the leading not-for-profit organisation working towards an Australia free from alcohol harms. They approach this through developing evidence-informed policy, enabling people-powered advocacy and delivering health promotion programs. https://fare.org.au/alcohol-companies-continue-to-play-by-their-own-rules-putting-our-childrens-health-at-risk

Last year, a Dan Murphy’s mobile billboard rolled into Byron Bay, parking itself 185 metres from Byron Bay High School. Emblazoned across it read, “Go for a skate while you wait for your Dan Murphy’s order to arrive.”  

Our community expects advertising of harmful and addictive products like alcohol to follow government-led rules that protect our children, families, and communities from harm. But alcohol companies are largely left to write and administer their own rules through the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC) Scheme. 

The result — our children are increasingly exposed to alcohol marketing, increasing their risk of using alcohol at an earlier age and in higher volumes.i 

So, when community members complained that the Dan Murphy’s billboard was targeting their children, their complaint was dismissed by ABAC.ii  

This is a typical response by ABAC, which is funded and managed by the three major alcohol industry peak bodies (Brewers Association, Spirits & Cocktails Australia, and Australian Grape & Wine).  

Fundamentally, the ABAC Scheme is flawed. This is most clear through the voluntary nature of their advertising code, meaning that alcohol companies are not required to abide by the code and don’t face the consequences for breaching it. 

The voluntary code is also limited in scope and ambiguous, which often leads to interpretations favourable to alcohol company interests, allowing our children to be exposed to harmful marketing practices. 

There are clear contradictions in recent ABAC adjudication decisions that dismiss community complaints about alcohol marketing targeting children and adolescents.  

For example, in the Dan Murphy’s billboard case, the ABAC panel determined that the advertisement was not appealing to children because the advertisement used dark rather than bright and contrasting colours. However, in June 2021, the panel also dismissed a community complaint about marketing by alcohol giant Diageo that used bright and contrasting colours and childlike phrasing ‘New can, who dis?’. The panel stated that the ‘retro’ design made the advertisement primarily targeted to adults.iii  

In December 2021, the ABAC panel dismissed community complaints about a bright cartoon-styled mural advertising the rapid alcohol delivery company Boozebud on the same street as a primary school. Not only did the panel dismiss this community complaint, but ABAC also ‘worked collaboratively’ with Boozebud to develop this lively mural. Although hundreds of children passed by this mural every day, the panel dismissed the complaint because it appealed to adults as well.iv  

Despite the Code stating that the use of designs that create confusion with soft drinks constitute an appeal to children and adolescents, in March 2022, ABAC dismissed a community complaint about an advertisement for Bundaberg Rum that closely resembles non-alcoholic ginger beer. The advertisement featured a cross-promotion between the alcoholic and non-alcoholic products, with both products depicted, but it was still deemed not to breach the Code.v  

In further contradiction, the use of Bundy Bear in this cross-promotion was not deemed to breach the code, despite the ABAC panel having previously stated that Bundy Bear has the potential to appeal to children.vi This builds on the history of Diageo’s Bundaberg Rum advertising to children, including during the popular show for toddlers, Dora the Explorer.vii 

These are just a few examples of ABAC’s recent failure to protect children and adolescents from alcohol marketing, but the systemic failures of the ABAC Scheme are well documented.viii  

Our community deserves better advertising standards for alcohol products. These should be developed and administered by a governing body that represents the community’s interests, not the interests of alcohol companies. Only then can we see alcohol companies being held accountable for harmful targeting of children.  


i Anderson et al. (2009) Impact of Alcohol Advertising and Media Exposure on Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. Alcohol & Alcoholism 43(3):229–43; Smith L.A. and Foxcroft D.R. (2009) The effect of alcohol advertising, marketing and portrayal on drinking behaviour in young people: systematic review of prospective cohort studies. BMC Public Health 9(51) doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-51; Jernigan et al. (2016) Alcohol marketing and youth alcohol consumption: a systematic review of longitudinal studies published since 2008. Addiction 112: 7–20 doi:10.1111/add.13591; Sargent and Babor (2020) The Relationship Between Exposure to Alcohol Marketing and Underage Drinking Is Causal. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 

ii ABAC (2021) ABAC Adjudication Panel Determination 129/21.

iii ABAC (2021) ABAC Adjudication Panel Determination 145/21.

iv ABAC (2021) ABAC Adjudication Panel Determination No 273/21.

v ABAC (2022) ABAC Adjudication Panel Determination No 11/22.

vi http://www.abac.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Final-Determination-Bundaberg-23-April-2006.pdf

vii Amy Corderoy, Sydney Morning Herald, ‘Bundaberg Rum advertisements on Dora the Explorer videos spark outrage’ (2015) <https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/bundaberg-rum-advertisements-on-dora-the-explorer-videos-spark-outrage-20150923-gjte3x.html>.

viii For academic reviews see: Reeve B. ‘Regulation of Alcohol Advertising in Australia: Does the Abac Scheme Adequately Protect Young People from Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages?’, QUT Law Review (2018) 18(1) 96–123; Pierce H et al. ‘Regulation of alcohol marketing in Australia: A critical review of the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code Scheme’s new Placement Rules.’ Drug Alcohol Review (2019) 38(1) 16–24. For government reviews see: Northern Territory Government, ‘Alcohol Policies and Legislation Review Final Report’ (2017) Available from https://alcoholreform.nt.gov.au/milestones/about-the-review/final-report; Education and Health Standing Committee. Alcohol: Reducing the harm and curbing the culture of excess. Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia; 2011. Available from: https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/commit.nsf/(Report+Lookup+by+Com+ID)/1511331A52931060482578B80007F0D5/$file/97909904.pdf

Post Covid: alcohol and the night time economy in the Sydney CBD

Sydney’s CBD has been bleak and empty the past few months, especially at night, but coronavirus restrictions in NSW are slowly easing.

From 1 June, pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants can seat up to 50 customers (instead of the previous 10), provided businesses ensure social distancing of one person per 4 square metres, and no bookings of more than 10 persons.

If restrictions lift further, venues will likely begin to extend hours of opening and to kick start Sydney’s night time economy.

It’s worth noting the changes to service of alcohol laws introduced for the Sydney CBD late last year.

Complex changes to service of alcohol laws affecting licensed venues in inner Sydney were introduced following a series of alcohol-fuelled “one punch” attacks around 2013-14.

These controls included “lock-out” laws preventing patrons from entering licensed premises after 1.30am, restrictions on the use of glasses and on sales of certain kinds of alcoholic beverages after midnight, and an end to all liquor service at 3am.

Other controls included risk-based licence fees, and additional security and public safety measures, such as RSA (responsible service of alcohol) marshals, and mandatory ID scanning for certain venues.

See here for a review of those laws, and here for subsequent changes made following an independent review in 2016 conducted by former High Court Justice the Hon. Ian Callinan AC.

Opponents of Sydney’s lock-out laws have argued that these controls destroyed Sydney’s night life (and night-time economy).

In May 2019, the NSW Parliament established a Joint Select Committee to inquire into Sydney’s Night Time Economy, including the appropriate balance between community safety and health outcomes.

The Final Report recommended a number of changes that were subsequently implemented through the Liquor Amendment (Night Time Economy) Regulation 2019 (NSW).

Lock-out laws

The “lock-out” laws originally applied to prescribed “precincts” in the Sydney central business district, and Kings Cross.

During the lock-out period, new patrons were prohibited from entering the premises [hence “lock-out”], although patrons could remain on the premises, and leave at any time: see Liquor Regulation 2018 (as amended), s 89(4).

Section 89, as amended, retains the definition of a “lock-out period” to mean the time after 1.30am until 5am the next day.

The lock-out period has not changed, but the changes introduced in December 2019 provide that the lock-out law only applies to the Kings Cross precinct, not the CDB entertainment precinct: see here.

In Kings Cross, the lock-out restrictions continue to apply to hotels, clubs, licenced public entertainment venues and karaoke bars, and high risk venues (defined in s 116B(2) of the Act to mean hotels with patron capacity of more than 120 people that regularly operate after midnight), as well as “level 2” licensed premises that have had previous incidents of violence.

On the other hand, the Regulations allow a Kings Cross liquor licensee to seek an exemption to both the lock-out and liquor sales cessation restrictions: see here.

Liquor sales cessation periods

Section 90 of the amended Regulations deals with the “liquor sales cessation period”.

During a liquor sales cessation period, hotels, clubs, licensed entertainment venues and karaoke bars, high risk venues, and venues to which a level 1 or level 2 licence applies – must not sell or supply liquor: see s 90(3).

The December 2019 amendments have not changed the liquor sales cessation period for the Kings Cross precinct: it begins at 3am and continues to 5am.

For premises in the Sydney CBD Entertainment precinct, s 90 states that if the premises are declared to be subject to a level 1 licence (and there are currently no such licenses), then the same liquor sales cessation period applies: service of alcohol must stop at 3am.

But otherwise, service of alcohol can continue on to 3.30am.

Wind-back of other controls

Section 91 of the Regulations sets out additional controls that apply to after midnight trading (the “general late trading period”) in hotels, clubs, licensed public entertainment venues and karaoke bars in Kings Cross.

These additional controls also apply to premises in other precincts which are declared to be premises to which this clause applies – due to a history of alcohol-related violence, or violence causing serious injury.

These additional controls include the requirement that drinks cannot be sold in glasses and glasses must be removed from patrons.

So, unless they are a declared premises, licensed premises in the CBD don’t have to remove glasses after midnight.  This is another of the wind-backs.

Section 92 provides that, in addition, shots and other drinks containing more than 5% alcohol (but with the exception of cocktails) cannot be sold after midnight.

However, following the December 2019 amendments, this control no longer applies in the Sydney CBD.

On the other hand, controls designed to slow the rate of alcohol consumption (and sober patrons up) remain.  Between 2am and the beginning of the liquor sales cessation period, no more than 2 alcoholic drinks can be sold or supplied to a person, and no more than 4 drinks during the general late trading period (after midnight).

These controls have not been wound back: see s 92(5)-(6).  However, they do not apply to “small bars”, which may apply for extended trading authorisation to trade after midnight.

They illustrate the intent of the legislation, which is to reduce levels of alcohol consumption in large venues, and to encourage a small bar culture. Small bars can now cater to up to 120 patrons (s 39).

Venues in the CBD precinct are no longer required to have an RSA marshal supervise the responsible service of alcohol during the midnight to 3.30am period on weekends and after public holidays, unless they are a declared premises to which this requirement applies (Regs s 94).

On the other hand, the requirement for a “round the clock incident register” continues in prescribed precincts (s 96), and the requirement for CCTV in premises within the Kings Cross precinct remains (s 95).

The ban on motorcycle gang members wearing clothing or symbols that identify their club remains in both the CBD and Kings Cross precincts (s. 98).

The NSW Parliament’s Joint Select Committee found that “due to the historical nature of Kings Cross, venue density and the small size of the precinct, there is a high risk that if the 2014 laws were removed, violence would increase and the rate of assaults would begin to rise again” (p vi).  However, these controls will be reviewed within 12 months.

A final, significant change introduced in December 2019 was the extension of trading hours for take-away bottle shops.  The amended regulations now give an exemption until midnight for premises that are otherwise authorised to trade to 10pm: Regs s. 117.

Did the lock-out laws work?

In August 2019, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research studied non-domestic assaults in the 62 months since the lock-out laws were introduced.

They found that non-domestic assaults were reduced by 53% in the Kings Cross precinct, and were reduced by 4% in the CBD precinct.

There was some displacement of violence to surrounding areas.

For example, non-domestic assaults rose by 18% in the proximate displacement area of Pyrmont, Ultimo, Chippendale, Surry Hills, Elizabeth Bay, and the Star City area.

It rose by more 30% in the non-proximate displacement area that included the suburbs of Bondi Beach, Coogee, Double Bay and Newtown.

But overall, the displacement was less than the reductions in violence that these laws achieved, meaning that overall violence was reduced by 13.3%.

Hospital admission statistics are another way of gauging the success of alcohol control laws in the inner city.

A study published in 2018 by The Medical Journal of Australia reported a 10% reduction in the number of violence-related fractures and a 7% reduction in drug and alcohol-related fractures presenting at St Vincent’s hospital.

These reductions suggest that changes to alcohol trading hours – including lock-outs, liquor sales cessation periods, and bans on late-night take-away liquor sales – were part of an effective package for reducing alcohol-related violence.

As with tobacco controls, it can be difficult to definitively quantify the specific contribution of each measure to the reduction in violent assaults.  It is the overall impact of the package of controls that speaks.

At the time the package of lock-out laws were introduced – after multiple, sickening, unprovoked attacks – there was a political imperative for action.

The Government had to do something, and it did.

It’s now five years later.  What strikes me is that the wind-backs introduced in December are relatively modest.

It remains to be seen what impact they will have on incidents of alcohol-related violence, and whether, in particular, they have created incentives for the kind of cultural change that is needed to ensure a safe, but late-night economy in Sydney.

Are you interested in studying health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Masters and Graduate Diploma in this area.  You can start in either the March, or July/August semester.  Click here, or here, for more information.

 

Despite industry objections, alcohol and pregnancy warnings will be mandatory in Australia and New Zealand

The food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has finalised the form of the alcohol and pregnancy warning label that will be mandatory on packaged alcohol sold in both countries.

Assuming the States do not request a further review, the new warning will be added as an amendment to Standard 1.2.7 of the Food Standards Code and will become mandatory after a two year transition period (see pp 6, 78 here).

Here it is.

It’s been a long time coming

In 2011, the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council commissioned a review of food labelling law and policy, chaired by Neil Blewett AC.

The committee’s report, co-authored by Australian public health law pioneer Chris Reynolds, is a terrific document, although increasingly difficult to locate online.

The Committee saw no reason to exempt alcohol from labelling requirements, in view of evidence relating to the risks of binge drinking and longer-term over-consumption.

(In 2015, alcohol use was responsible for more than 6,300 deaths in Australia, or 4% of total deaths – see AIHW, Australian Burden of Disease Study 2015, Table D2, p 167)

Amongst many sensible recommendations, the report recommended that “generic alcohol warning messages should be placed on alcohol labels” as part of a broader, multifaceted, national campaign addressing alcohol-related harm [recommendation 24].

Secondly, it recommended that a mandatory warning about the risks of drinking while pregnant should be included on “containers of alcoholic beverages and at point of sale for unpackaged alcoholic beverages” [recommendation 25].

Thirdly, it recommended that alcoholic beverages should not be exempt from energy labelling requirements that apply to packaged food under Standard 1.2.8 of the Food Standards Code [recommendation 26].

The Government’s response to the review is here.

Added momentum for a warning label about the risks of drinking while pregnant came from a Parliamentary inquiry in 2012 into the Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.

The Foreword to this report, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, states:

“FASD [fetal alcohol spectrum disorders] is an entirely preventable but incurable condition caused by a baby’s exposure to alcohol in the womb. The consequences are expressed along a spectrum of disabilities including: physical, cognitive, intellectual, learning, behavioural, social and executive functioning abnormalities and problems with communication, motor skills, attention and memory.”

The lifetime cost of for one person with FASD in the United States is at least UD$2 million (see FASD Strategic Action Plan 2018-2028, p 8).

The Standing Committee recommended that the Commonwealth implement – by 1 October 2013 – a mandatory warning label advising women not to drink when pregnant or planning a baby on packaging of all pregnancy test kits (Recommendation 7).

This recommendation has not been implemented.

The Committee also recommended implementation – by 1 January 2014 – of a warning label for all alcoholic beverages advising women not to drink while pregnant or planning pregnancy (Recommendation 11).

FSANZ has now finalized this warning – for packaged alcohol.  A warning about drinking while breastfeeding was outside the scope of this work.

It should have been a non-brainer

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that in 2016, around 35% of Australian women drank while pregnant.  One in four women who were unaware of their pregnancy continued to drink after they found out.

In this age of personal responsibility, alcohol and pregnancy warning labels ought to be a no-brainer, but it has taken until 31 January 2020 for Food Standards Australia New Zealand to approve a mandatory health warning and graphic for alcoholic beverages that contain more than 1.15% alcohol by volume.

For detail of the amendment to Standard 2.7.1, which governs labelling of alcoholic beverages, see here (pp 100-104).

The Australian and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which is responsible for developing food regulation policy, had earlier, in October 2018, requested FSANZ to consider options for mandatory alcohol and pregnancy warning labels.

Getting FSANZ involved was a good idea – long overdue.  FSANZ is a technical, a-political agency that reviews evidence, considers options and develops the mandatory technical standards that make up the Food Standards Code.

A methodical, evidence-based, bureaucratic process has significant advantages in areas of regulation prone to lobbying and interference from well-resourced industries.

The internet remembers

Draft (updated) National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Guidelines clearly state:

“A To reduce the risk of harm to their unborn child, women who are pregnant or planning a pregnancy should not drink alcohol.

B For women who are breastfeeding, not drinking is safest for their baby.” (p 47)

In 2018, DrinkWise, a responsible drinking campaign largely funded by the alcohol industry, distributed a poster to hospitals and GP clinics around the country that said: “It’s not known if alcohol is safe to drink when you are pregnant”.

This was widely criticised; even the New York Times ran a story.

DrinkWise re-phrased its poster (see below).

DrinkWise now has a new campaign called “The internet remembers”.

Indeed.

Alcohol industry objections

The Approval Report for the new warning label lists the concerns raised by the alcohol industry, together with FSANZ’ response.  The warning FSANZ chose was: “Alcohol can cause lifelong harm to your baby” – which performed better in consumer testing than “Any amount of alcohol can harm your baby”.

For its part, the alcohol industry suggested that the text of the warning should be “It’s safest not to drink while pregnant” as “medical knowledge is not settled whether drinking small amounts [while pregnant] has a bad influence [on the foetus] (see p 44 here).

Industry was also concerned that the words “HEALTH WARNING” were “misleading, inflammatory and may alarm consumers” (p 26).  It recommended changing “HEALTH WARNING” to “DRINK RESPONSIBLY” (p 28).

FSANZ noted, unsurprisingly, that such a change would “not meet the intended purpose of the pregnancy warning label to reinforce public health advice and messaging not to drink alcohol while pregnant”.

Industry also objected to the red font required for “HEALTH WARNING”, on the basis that it would inflate costs.  It requested a monochromatic label (p 44).  It wanted the label to be smaller (p 29).  It felt the cost of the label was not proportionate to the benefit (pp 33-34).

Industry sought a longer phase-in period of up to 5 years, rather than the 2 years proposed by FSANZ (p 36).

Overall, while the alcohol industry was “fully supportive of interventions that are proportionate, well evidenced and shown to be effective at changing harmful consumption behaviours”, it was “concerned about the lack of rigour of the proposal in this regard” (p 43).

Its objections even extended to the ponytail in the graphic of the woman (p 24).

Overall, the impression you get is of an industry keen to reduce the consumer impact of the warning, keen to delay its implementation, and far more interested in revenue than the harm its products can cause the next generation.

No surprises there, unfortunately.

“Party like it’s payday!” urges Diageo Australia (before your welfare cheque runs out?)

It looks like Diageo Australia is at it again.

No, this time they’re not advertising Bundy Rum to a 3 year old.

Instead, they’re urging Western Australians to “Party like it’s payday” – hoisting ads for Captain Morgan Original Spiced Gold Rum around the Perth suburbs, including right outside a Centrelink office.

Whatever were they thinking?  Party like it’s payday – before your welfare cheque runs out?

Here’s Hannah Pierce, Research Officer at the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth, Executive Officer of the Alcohol Advertising Review Board, and a Master of Health Law candidate at Sydney Law School.

Hannah’s blogpost is re-published with permission from Drink Tank.

Just when you thought the marketing techniques of alcohol companies couldn’t shock you any further, along comes an ad campaign that takes things to a whole new low.

Last month the Alcohol Advertising Review Board received a complaint about outdoor ads for Captain Morgan Original Spiced Gold Rum with the very prominent message, “Party like it’s payday”.

Understandably, the complainant was concerned about the tagline linking drinking and payday:

It makes me think of the people who spend their pay on alcohol and then don’t have much money left over for essentials like food and rent etc. There has been quite a lot of talk in the media of cashless welfare cards which can’t be used on alcohol or gambling so people use their money on food, clothing and bills. This is obviously a big problem in Australia, so it seems outrageous to have a very public alcohol advertising campaign that is actually promoting partying and buying alcohol around the payday theme.”

When notified of the complaint, Diageo Australia, the owner of Captain Morgan rum, declined to participate in the AARB process and confirmed their support for the self-regulatory system.

Given the sensitive issues the ad could raise, you’d think they’d be pretty careful where they put the ad, right?

Wrong.

The AARB received a second complaint about the ad, this time placed directly outside a Centrelink office on a Telstra payphone. The complainant said:

The sign says “Party like its Payday” conveniently out the front of Centrelink where people go to get their fortnightly welfare payment. This is highly insensitive considering Australia’s alcohol issues are highly prevalent amount those on welfare benefits […]”

Considering the substantial concerns about alcohol-related harms in Australia, including alcohol use among young people and vulnerable populations who are likely to visit Centrelink, the placement of this ad is blatantly inappropriate.

These complaints were reviewed and upheld by the AARB Panel. The Panel believed the tagline was irresponsible and encouraged excessive drinking, and that the ad attempts to establish that drinking Captain Morgan should take precedence over other activities, such as paying for accommodation and food.

The Alcohol Advertising Guidelines of the Outdoor Media Association (OMA), the peak national industry body that represents most of Australia’s outdoor media companies, note that its members “only accept copy for alcohol advertising that has been approved for display through the Alcohol Advertising Pre-vetting System”.

Evidently, the content of the Captain Morgan ad was actually approved by the self-regulatory system, highlighting serious concerns about its ability to ensure alcohol advertising is socially responsible.

In addition, the OMA has only one guideline relating to the placement of alcohol ads – that they cannot be placed within 150 metres of a school gate. Everywhere else is open slather.

So it appears neither the content of the “Party like it’s payday” rum ad nor its placement outside a Centrelink breach any codes in the self-regulatory system.

Despite this, the AARB has written to the OMA and Advertising Standards Bureau to seek their position on whether the content and placement of the Captain Morgan ad is consistent with the OMA’s commitment to “the responsible advertising of alcoholic beverages”.

The AARB has also written to Telstra to highlight our concerns about outdoor alcohol advertising and ask that they consider phasing out alcohol advertising on Telstra property, including pay phones.

The AARB was developed by the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth and Cancer Council WA in response to concerns about the effectiveness of alcohol advertising self-regulation in Australia.

This Captain Morgan ad is yet another example that highlights the need for this alternative complaint review system to support action on alcohol ads that the self-regulatory system deems acceptable.

If you see an alcohol ad that concerns you, we encourage you to submit a complaint to the AARB. Every complaint the AARB receives is further evidence of the need for strong, independent, legislated controls on alcohol advertising in Australia. Visit www.alcoholadreview.com.au and follow @AlcoholAdReview on Twitter to find out more.

Republished with permission from Drinktank.

The Callinan inquiry into Sydney’s lock-out laws

shutterstock_144406720

A few questions came to mind when I read that former High Court Justice Ian Callinan had been appointed to head the independent inquiry into amendments to NSW’s liquor licensing laws, including the controversial lock-out laws”.

Mr Callinan was a member of the High Court when it decided, by a 3:2 majority, that hoteliers owe no duty to use reasonable care to prevent patrons from causing harm to themselves as a result of excess drinking.  Despite the economic interest hoteliers have in encouraging patrons to drink, and to keep drinking.

The primacy of personal responsibility was clearly the over-riding value in the statement by Justice Callinan that:

Except for extraordinary cases, the law should not recognise a duty of care to protect persons from harm caused by intoxication following a deliberate and voluntary decision on their part to drink to excess [Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club [2004] HCA 29, at [121]].”

The lock-out laws that currently apply in the CBD and Kings Cross precincts of Sydney were neither an exercise in temperance by the NSW Government, nor a response to the fact that alcohol is responsible for 5% of Australia’s burden of disease (Australia’s Health 2016, p 59).

Rather, the lock-out laws were part of a package of amendments seeking to reduce the number of unprovoked alcohol-fuelled assaults by yobbos on Sydney streets.

For a short review of the “one-punch” reforms, see here.

The impact of the liquor licensing amendments on supermarkets and bottle shops was discussed here.

The death of Thomas Kelly, who was punched in the head during a night out in Kings Cross, was partly a catalyst for these changes.

In July, the Kelly family suffered a further loss with the death of another son, Ralph.

The injustice visited upon this family is heart-breaking, it is dizzying.

But it truthfully illustrates how alcohol-related harm spreads outwards – through families and beyond, like the ripples in a pond.

Much of that harm is externalised by the alcohol industry onto others.

What is the industry’s response?

Industry-funded “DrinkWise” public health messages/advertisements (can’t tell which) like this one, that build brand value for alcohol companies and associate beer brands with water sports.

Yep, that ought to work.

Watch out for the new “SmokeWise” e-cigarette advertisements – brought to you by Philip Morris….

 

Highlights from the Callinan report

In his report, Mr Callinan gave particular weight to the opinions and experience of police and the medical profession.  He said:

“The police and the medical profession, the latter of whom are financially and generally otherwise disinterested in the relevant issues, are strongly, adamantly, of the opinion that it is the Amendments in total and in combination that make them effective in reducing alcohol-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour in the [CBD and Kings Cross] Precincts”.

He concluded that the Precincts were “grossly overcrowded, violent, noisy, and in places, dirty, before the Amendments, but that after them, they were transformed into much safer, quieter and cleaner areas” (p 10).

Mr Callinan was dismissive of the assumption that the vibrancy of a city at night can only be measured by the amount of alcohol consumed or available.  However, he acknowledged that opportunities for live entertainers may have diminished, and that the amendments may have contributed to some closures of premises selling alcohol, and some reductions in employment opportunities:

“The Amendments have come at a cost which is not quantifiable but which should not be exaggerated to employment, live entertainment and the vibrancy of the Precincts” (p 11).

Mr Callinan did not accept that violence had simply been displaced to other areas.  In response to the usual suggestion that anti-social drinking should be addressed by “cultural change and education”, rather than regulation, he said: “Cultural attitudes are difficult and slow to change.  The legislature in the meantime has to deal with the situation as it exists” (p 6).

Mr Callinan pointed out that the lock-out laws had enabled more police to be deployed in detecting and preventing non-alcohol-related harm, rather than tying up resources (pp 8-9).

Mr Callinan stated that he regarded the 10 pm curfew as making “little or no contribution to violence and anti-social behaviour in the Precincts” (para 9.10), although he acknowledged it might contribute to domestic violence (para 9.11).

He recommended relaxing the hours of sale for takeaway alcohol at licensed premises to 11 pm, and home delivered alcohol until midnight (para 9.10).

Two of the more controversial liquor control measures included in Mr Callinan’s inquiry were the “lock out” and “last drinks” provision.

For a trial period of two years, Mr Callinan recommended a relaxation of the lock-out laws from 1.30 am to 2.00 pm, but only to enable patrons to enter those parts of premises offering live entertainment.  He recommended a further relaxation of the liquor sales cessation period, from 3.00 am to 3.30 am, but only in respect of patrons in the “live entertainment” parts of the premises.

The NSW Government has indicated it will respond to the Callinan report before the end of the year.

A short review of the NSW Government’s “one-punch” alcohol control reforms

shutterstock_372107521

In February 2016, former High Court Justice the Hon. Ian Callinan AC QC was appointed by the NSW Government to review the effectiveness of the “lockouts” and the 3am liquor sales cessation period on the Sydney CBD entertainment precinct, the Kings Cross precinct, and potential displacement areas.

Mr Callinan will also consider the impact of the 10pm closing time for bottleshops, with a particular focus on rural and remote communities.

These are perhaps the best known “one punch” alcohol controls introduced by former NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell’s government following a number of highly-publicised assaults by alcohol-affected persons on Sydney streets.

 

Why did the NSW government act?

In July 2012, 18 year old Thomas Kelly was walking with his girlfriend down Victoria Street, Kings Cross, when he was punched in the face.  It was an unprovoked attack.  He fell back, cracking his skull on the pavement.

His life support system was turned off two days later.

Ralph Kelly, Thomas’ father, told the media his son’s life had been finally taking off”, after difficult times at school, with the good news of a cadetship with a Sydney accounting firm.

The young man who threw the punch, Kieran Loveridge, was sentenced to 4 years for manslaughter.

The Crown appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.  The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal agreed, extending the minimum sentence to ten years.

In December 2014, Loveridge’s application for leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.

Thomas Kelly was not an isolated incident.

For example, Daniel Christie hit the pavement just metres from where Thomas Kelly fell, after being fatally punched on New Year’s Eve 2013.

Fady Taiba spent 19 days in a coma after refusing an intoxicated man entry to Bar 333 in September 2013.

34-year old Brazilian Lucio Stein Rodrigues was killed by a “ferocious” punch outside a pub in the CBD in November 2013.

Between 2000 and December 2013, 90 people were killed in this way, by a single blow to the head.

 

Preventive alcohol controls prior to the “one punch” alcohol laws

According to John Green, from the NSW Branch of the Australian Hotels Association, “It’s not good enough anymore to use hotels as whipping posts…We need to target those thugs in the community who think it is OK to pre-fuel and hit people.”

But how exactly do you “target thugs”, before – rather than after – they become violent, without burdening the service of alcohol?

Three “preventive” controls are worth mentioning.  These controls were already in place when Thomas Kelly, Daniel Christie and others like them hit the pavement.

Firstly, s. 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) authorises police to give “move on” orders to people who are drunk in public.

In 2011, Parliament introduced the offence in s 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW).  This is an offence for continuing intoxicated and disorderly behaviour, following a section 198 order.

According to the NSW Ombudsman, over a 1 year period (October 2011-September 2012), NSW police issued 110,949 formal orders to intoxicated persons. 33,580 were orders issued under s. 198.

Secondly, under s 206 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, police can detain an intoxicated person who is behaving in a disorderly manner, or in need of physical protection due to their intoxication.

Finally, the NSW Government had already introduced “three strikes” legislation, which imposes “strikes” when a licensee or manager commits one of a number of serious offences in relation to an alcohol licence.

After a third prescribed offence, the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority can decide whether to impose a third strike, and thereafter to cancel, suspend or impose additional conditions on a liquor licencee’s license.

Preventive laws have taken different forms since 2014.

 

The NSW Government’s “one punch” alcohol reforms

Five reforms are worth noting; for a broader discussion of the government’s response, see here.

Firstly, the Government introduced sections 25A-25B into the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).  Section 25A is a new statutory offence for an assault causing death.  Section 25B imposes a minimum mandatory custodial sentence of 8 years for this offence if the accused had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 (3 times the legal driving limit).

Amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (s. 138G) authorise police to detain and require a person to undergo breath testing (within 2 hours of the alleged commission of this offence), or to give a blood or urine sample at a hospital, within 4 hours of the alleged commission of this offence.

In 2014, a Bill (the Crimes Amendment (Intoxication) Bill 2014) was introduced to create a number of additional aggravated intoxication offences, with a minimum period of imprisonment for each offence.  However, it was never passed.

Secondly, changes to the Liquor Act 2007 and its regulations introduced the idea that a geographic area can be declared to be a “prescribed precinct” (s 116C).  The Act then sets out the kinds of restrictions the regulations can impose on premises within a “prescribed precinct” (s. 116I).  These may include:

  • Restricting use of glasses or breakable containers;
  • Prohibiting or restricting sale of certain kinds of liquor;
  • Prohibiting patrons from entering licensed premises at certain times (ie “lock outs”);
  • Requiring incident registers to be kept;
  • Requiring licensees to contribute to the costs of measures to prevent violence and alcohol-related harm in the precinct.

Additionally, the Liquor Act 2007 and Liquor Regulation 2008 set out a number of specific controls that apply to the Kings Cross Precinct, and the Sydney Entertainment Precinct, respectively: these take effect as licence conditions applicable to licencees within each precinct.

The most significant controls that apply to the new CBD precinct are the “lock out” and liquor sales cessation periods.  These are discussed separately below.

Thirdly, the Liquor Act authorises a police officer to issue a temporary banning order that prohibits a person from entering or remaining on specified licensed premises within a prescribed precinct for up to 48 hours (s. 116F).

Fourthly, the Act provides the basis for payment of risk-based licence fees by liquor licensees.  Fees are set by taking into account the location of the premises, its trading hours, patron capacity, offences committed, and compliance with licence requirements (s. 58A).

Click here for an overview.

The final control included in this short review is the 10pm closing time for bottle shops and other take-away retail liquor establishments: s 12(1C) of the Act.  This was discussed in a previous post.

 

Lock out and liquor sales cessation controls

There are 7 categories of liquor licence in NSW.  Taking the Sydney CBD precinct as an example, under ss 53Y-53Z of the Regulations, the lock out and liquor sales cessation restrictions apply specifically to hotels, clubs, high-risk venues (including large hotels which operate after midnight), and premises to which a “level 2” licence applies (due to previous incidents of violence).

The “lock out period” is defined in s 3 of the Regulations to mean after 1.30am until the beginning of the standard trading period the following day.  During a lock out period, new patrons may not enter the premises, although patrons can remain on the premises, and leave at any time.

During a liquor sales cessation period, hotels, clubs and high risk venues must not sell liquor.  The liquor sales cessation period” is defined to mean between 3am until the beginning of the following day’s trading period.

Additional controls apply to after midnight trading (the general late trading period) in respect of declared venues with a history of alcohol-related violence.  For example, glasses must be removed from patrons and drinks cannot be sold in glasses during the late (after midnight) period.

During the general late trading period, venues within the Sydney CBD Entertainment Precinct are also prohibited from selling certain kinds of alcoholic drinks (see Regs s. 53ZB).  These include:

  • Shots (any drink designed to be consumed rapidly);
  • drinks containing more than 50% liquor;
  • any ready to drink beverage containing more than 5% alcohol by volume, and
  • drinks containing more than 30ml spirits.

However, these restrictions do not apply to cocktails.

During the late general trading period, no more than 4 alcoholic drinks, or the contents of one bottle of wine, may be served to the same patron.

This requires licencees to keep tally of the number of drinks sold to any one patron.

Under s 53ZE, licencees of premises within the CBD Precinct must keep a “round the clock” incident register.  Where a violent incident does occur, the licencee must preserve and keep the area where the incident occurred intact (s 53ZF).

S 53ZG also requires licencees to exclude entry to people wearing clothing or symbols of a number of motorcycle clubs such as the Bandidos, Gypsy Jokers, or Rebels.

 

Are NSW’s one-punch laws working?

One man who has seen it all is Dr Gordian Fulde, head of emergency at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital, Darlinghurst, who was named Senior Australian of the year in 2016

Decades ago, nobody would punch a nurse”, he says.  But these days spitting, punching and kicking are common occurrences.

Dr Fulde is the lead author of a recent paper in the Medical Journal of Australia comparing emergency presentations to his hospital’s emergency department before and after the one-punch reforms.   The study confirms that presentations for alcohol-related serious injuries are much higher during the “high alcohol time” from 6pm Friday to 6am Sunday.

This study also found that after the introduction of the one-punch laws in 2014, there was a 25% reduction in patients presenting with serious alcohol-related injuries during the high alcohol period.  The authors note: “The reduction was most marked in the period after midnight, which corresponds with the main thrust of the changed regulations”.

According to a study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the one-punch reforms were associated with an immediate 32% reduction in the number of reported assaults in Kings Cross, and a 26% reduction in assaults in the Sydney CBD.

These reductions suggest that changes to alcohol trading hours – including lock-outs, liquor sales cessation periods, and bans on late-night take-away liquor sales – are part of an effective package for reducing alcohol-related violence.

However, as with tobacco controls, it may be difficult to definitively quantify the specific contribution of each measure and to link it to reductions in violent assaults.  It is the overall impact of the package of controls that speaks.

Recently, a grassroots organisation called “Keep Sydney Open” have opened a petition to the Premier, Mike Baird, to remove the lockout and last drinks laws.

What is their solution to unprovoked attacks by alcohol-affected young men who are angry at the world?

“We demand smarter solutions — a holistic and lateral approach to preventing assaults which examines transport, CCTV, tougher sentencing, density and diversity of licensed premises, venue management, culture as a placating tool and the tendency towards violence among certain groups of individuals.”

CCTV, tougher sentencing, freezes on new licences?  These are not new ideas, as a glance at the Act and Regulations illustrates.

“Culture as a placating tool”?  What do they have in mind here?

The uncomfortable truth is that Australia’s alcohol culture is partly created by the easy availability of alcohol, the ubiquitous nature of alcohol advertising, and the relative affordability of alcohol (availability, advertising, and price).

Lawmakers may find it more difficult than they would hope to meet community expectations about safety from unprovoked, alcohol-fuelled assaults without relying on laws that burden the business of service of alcohol, and impact indirectly on levels of alcohol consumption.

Are you interested in studying health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Graduate Diploma and a Masters degree in health law that is open to qualified applicants.  You do not need a law degree to apply.  Click here for further details.  And click here for more information about Sydney Law School’s health law team.

ABAC Complaints Panel won’t consider complaint about Diageo Australia spamming 3 year-old with Bundaberg Rum video-advert

It’s official.  Spamming children with alcohol advertisements does not breach the ABAC Code, the alcohol industry’s swiss-cheese voluntary standard for alcohol advertising regulation.

The Chief Adjudicator of the ABAC Complaints Panel has ruled that the Panel will not consider a complaint about Diageo Australia spamming a 3 year-old with a Bundaberg Rum video-advert when she clicked on a Dora the Explorer video on a children’s YouTube channel.

The decision by Chief Adjudicator the Hon. Michael Lavarch AO confirms that otherwise unobjectionable alcohol advertisements do not breach the ABAC Code simply because they appear on children’s websites.

IMG_4212 - resizedIMG_4213

I made the complaint to ABAC in September 2015 after the ads shown here appeared on a Dora the Explorer YouTube channel.

Fairfax press reported on the issue here.

Inexplicably, the Advertising Standards Bureau lost the complaint for 3 months, but finally found it again and forwarded it to Mr Lavarch.

Mr Lavarch’s letter can be found here.  He wrote:

“Your complaint is based upon the alcohol advertisement being placed on the YouTube channel prior to your daughter watching a programme that was clearly for younger children. The complaint however does not go to the content of the advertisement but is based solely upon the issue of where the advertisement was found.”

Mr Lavarch wrote that the complaint would “not be referred to the Panel for a determination as it raises only the issue of placement of an alcohol marketing communication rather than its content”.

In explaining his decision, Mr Lavarch referred to a previous determination of the ABAC Panel in 2012 (complaint 118/11)  where the ABAC Panel dismissed a complaint about an ad for Crown Lager appearing on a children’s website aimed at 3-8 year olds.

Despite not forwarding the complaint to the ABAC Complaints Panel, Mr Lavarch indicated that he would raise the complaint with the ABAC Management Committee for consideration.

In my view, this is a test for the integrity of the Management Committee, which is dominated by alcohol and advertising industry associations.

Why did a Bundaberg Rum ad run on a toddler’s YouTube channel?

Mr Lavarch indicated he had made inquiries of the advertiser (Diageo Australia) about how the Bundaberg Rum ad came to be running on a YouTube channel devoted to young children’s content.  This is where it gets interesting.

…Google thought you were an adult

Mr Lavarch’s letter conveys the advice of Diageo that “YouTube only serves this advertiser’s advertisements to users who are logged in to the Google platform that are aged 21+”.

I take this to mean that in Diageo’s view, I was logged into Google, and Google (which owns YouTube) assumed that the relevant YouTube channel was being accessed by an adult.

In fact, at the time, I was logged out of Google, and out of YouTube.

Even so, why should that make a difference?  Many computers used by children will be logged into Google or YouTube 24 hours a day.  Wouldn’t it be smarter for alcohol advertisers to keep away from children’s content, and to limit their alcohol advertising to websites that are age-restricted to adults?

Would Google/YouTube and its advertisers rely on the same arguments (you were logged into Google, so Google thought you were an adult) if advertisements for sex services were streamed on YouTube channels devoted to children’s content?

…You were accessing an unauthorised or pirated video

Mr Lavarch also relayed  from Diageo that “it seems that in this case the video was not an authorised, licensed, or verified video on YouTube and therefore YouTube would not have identified it as children’s content.”

This argument strikes me as self-serving.  As the photos on this blogpost illustrate, the Dora video in question was hosted by Super Dora Games, a YouTube channel with >62,000 subscribers and more than 54 million views.

Check it out.  Is it really so unreasonable to expect ABAC to hold Australian alcohol advertisers accountable when they advertise on sites like this?

This isn’t the shady backrooms of the internet, and I do not accept that children’s content websites should be fair game for alcohol advertisers.

Diageo’s assertions are not entirely consistent with advice received from the office of the Hon. Mitch Fifield MP, Minister for Communications, reported in an earlier post.  Google advised the Department that:

“[U]nfortunately [Diageo’s advertisement] was not correctly labelled as an alcohol advertisement, and Google’s other measures to identify inappropriate advertising content did not pick it up”.

The “other measures” comprise the following:

  • “alcohol advertisements are only shown to users that are logged in and who are aged 18 years and older;
  • Google excludes content that is family friendly;
  • Publishers have to opt in to show alcohol advertisements on their video content”.

So what really happened?

It’s difficult to know.  At the end of the day, Diageo Australia spammed a 3 year-old watching content appropriate for toddlers, but that doesn’t even breach the voluntary Code that Australia’s largest alcohol companies, hand on heart, have pledged their allegiance to.

Plugging the holes in the cheese

Mr Lavarch’s letter conveyed advice from Diageo Australia that the following measures have been implemented by its media partners (Google/YouTube?) to prevent similar occurrences:

  • Development of a list of ‘safe’ channels that Diageo content may appear on. All of the channels on the list are 18+ with content vetted to ensure no appeal to minors.
  • Development of a list of key words that should flag any potential areas of appeal to minors. This list ensures Diageo’s advertising will not appear alongside any content that is tagged or titled with these words.

These assurances sound constructive, but they also raise some new questions.  Is the list of channels ‘safe’ for alcohol advertising a private initiative by Diageo, or are all Australian alcohol advertisers adopting it?  Is the list publicly available?

The photos you see above illustrate that spamming children with liquor advertisements on children’s content websites is a real issue, not a hypothetical one.  In my view it would now be appropriate for the ABAC Management Committee to plug one of the holes in the ABAC cheese and to include a provision that prohibits Australian alcohol advertisers from advertising alcohol to children who are accessing age-appropriate content online.

The Alcohol Advertising Review Board, an initiative of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth and Cancer Council WA, administers a voluntary Placement Code that includes the following provision:

“Alcohol Advertisements shall not appear online in connection with content that appeals or is likely to appeal to Young People.”

The alcohol industry could only object to a provision like this if it was unwilling for its members to be held accountable for spamming children and adolescents with alcohol advertisements when they are accessing material online that is of particular appeal to them.

If Diageo and other advertisers have taken steps to ensure that something like this won’t happen again, then they shouldn’t have any problems with updating the ABAC Code accordingly.

The bottom line

Unfortunately, Mr Lavarch’s response illustrates that at the present time, complaints about alcohol advertising to children – to the extent that they raise the issue of placement – are being invisibly eliminated from the ABAC complaints system, confirming the impression that there is no problem to begin with.

Complaints like mine no longer make it through to the full Complaints Panel.

If a purely voluntary code is the best way of regulating alcohol advertising in Australia, then it’s time for the Management Panel to amend the Code so that advertisers are required not to advertise in connection with content that appeals or is likely to appeal to young people.

Is the ABAC Management Panel just a club dominated by alcohol and advertising interests, or can they act in the public interest to protect children from alcohol advertising?

We’ll see.  This issue may have a while to run yet.

In the meantime, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) has released a new alcohol policy which is strongly critical of Australia’s current regime for alcohol advertising regulation – including the ABAC Code.  The recommendations about alcohol advertising are worth quoting in full:

“Recommendations:
1. That the current self-regulatory approach to alcohol advertising in Australia and New Zealand should be changed to include statutory restrictions, including the enforcement of costly sanctions for breaches of the advertising code.
2. That the sponsorship of sporting events by the alcohol industry should be prohibited in Australia and New Zealand as a first step towards a model of alcohol advertising regulations which would phase out all alcohol promotions to young people.
3. That the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code should be amended to introduce mandatory warning label requirements for alcoholic beverages, with specific guidelines on the placement, size, colour and text of the label so they are visible and recognisable; and a strict timeframe put in place for its comprehensive implementation.”

Are you interested in studying health law?  For more information about our Master and Graduate Diploma in Health Law, click here.

The role of law in noncommunicable disease prevention: an easy-to-digest explanation

Public health lawyers like me are often challenged on their claim that the law can (and should) play a significant role in the prevention of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Future Leaders, an Australian philanthropic organisation, has recently published an open-access, clearly written book on NCD prevention called Dancing in the Rain: Living with NCDs, which includes a chapter by Professor Larry Gostin and I on the role of law in NCD prevention. Here we describe the growing global governance framework for NCD prevention, and the range of new initiatives that governments around the world are using to combat NCDs, including measures that draw upon law and regulation. We contrast this widespread global innovation with Australia’s failure to take decisive action in relation to the prevention of obesity and excessive alcohol consumption, asking why Australia has ended up as a ‘laggard’ in these areas when it remains the world leader in tobacco control. This is an easy-to-digest introduction to the interaction between law and NCD prevention, and it sits alongside a number of other insightful chapters from prominent Australian activists and academics, including Dr Alessandro Demaio, Professor Fiona Stanley, and Professor Rob Moodie.

Dancing in the Rain is accessible in full via the following link: http://bit.ly/1QoDyLS

The ACT sin bins junk food ads on buses

The ACT has taken steps to ban fast-food ads on buses. Image from abc.net
The ACT has taken steps to ban fast-food ads on buses. Image from abc.net

The ACT attracted media attention this week for becoming the first Australian jurisdiction to regulate ride-sharing services like Uber. But the ACT’s also been active in an area that’s close to the heart of many public health advocates: regulation of junk food and alcohol advertising. Promotions for these products will be banned on ACTION buses, along with ads for gambling, fossil fuels, and weapons, under a strict new government policy.

While derided by critics as another example of the “Nanny State” in action, the move represents a win when it comes to protecting children from junk food promotion. In discussing the ban, the ACT Minister for Territory and Municipal Services acknowledged that “[i]t’s quite clear that junk food advertising is targeted at children, in many many places it’s quite pervasive and… buses are just another example of that… we need to make sure that kids are getting a healthier message given the level of childhood obesity we see in our community.”

There’s little appetite for stronger restrictions on junk food ads at the federal level, despite the National Preventative Health Taskforce recommending legal measures to reduce children’s exposure to junk food ads back in 2008. This was followed by several attempts by The Greens party to introduce legislative amendments that would restrict junk food promotions on television. As with tobacco control, maybe legislative restrictions on junk food marketing to children need to start at the local level and work their way up.

The ACT’s policy also reflects growing government interest in “walking the talk” when it comes to obesity prevention, including by restricting the sale and promotion of unhealthy foods and beverages within government institutions. For example, New York City has developed a nutrition policy for all foods purchased, served, or contracted for by City agencies. Across the ditch, the New Zealand Ministry of Health has told all District Health Boards to stop selling soft drink in hospitals. Bans on junk food advertising in government-owned institutions, and on government-owned transport services, could form part of a package of measures that ensure that government agencies take a consistent stance on the importance of good nutrition and preventing weight gain. As noted by the ACT Minister for Territory and Municpal Services, if governments are seeking to promote healthier food to children, “leaving junk food advertising off the buses helps contribute to that overall objective of delivering a healthier message to our kids.”

The NZ Health Ministry has called on District Health Boards to stop selling soft drink.
The NZ Health Ministry has called on District Health Boards to stop selling soft drink.